Citation NR: 9700107
Decision Date: 01/06/97 Archive Date: 02/03/97
DOCKET NO. 93-26 175 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St.
Petersburg, Florida
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular
disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
J. Andrew Ahlberg, Associate Counsel
REMAND
The veteran served on active duty from November 1952 to April
1955.
This case was previously before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from adverse action by
the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter
RO). The case was remanded by the Board for additional
development in December 1995, and the veteran’s claim for
service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder was
subsequently allowed by the RO. Thus, the only issue
remaining on appeal is entitlement to service connection for
a cardiovascular disorder.
The December 1995 remand directed the RO to provide the
veteran with a cardiovascular examination that was to include
an opinion as to the etiological relationship, if any,
between residuals of the service-connected mortar wounds and
coronary artery disease. The RO was also to adjudicate the
claim for service connection for a heart disorder under the
guidelines of Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 439, 448 (1995),
which held that service connection may be established for
that portion of a disability resulting from aggravation of a
service-connected disability. However, neither requested
action was accomplished. It was noted that there was an
opinion on file that there might be some relationship. As
the United States Court of Veterans Appeals found it
"particularly disturbing" that the VA proceeded with
adjudication in the absence of an opinion that the VA had
specifically requested, Smith v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 335, 340
(1993), the Board concludes that the case must again be
remanded so as to accomplish the development requested in the
Board’s December 1995 remand. It is also noted that,
subsequent to the aforementioned remand, there has been
additional disability for which service connection has been
established.
Finally, in an attempt to avoid further remand, an
opportunity to obtain additional medical records will be
undertaken at this time.
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following
developments:
1. The RO should, with the assistance of
the appellant as indicated, attempt to
obtain copies of any clinical records of
cardiovascular treatment that has been
rendered. To the extent there is an
attempt to obtain records that is
unsuccessful, the claims folder should
contain documentation of the attempts
made. The appellant and his
representative should also be informed of
the negative results. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.
2. The veteran’s claims file should be
provided to a VA cardiologist who is to
express an opinion as to whether the
veteran has a current cardiovascular
disability, to include hypertension or a
supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (see
reports from February 1996 VA “Diseases
of the Heart” examination), that is
etiologically related to service
connected residuals of mortar wounds
sustained in service or post-traumatic
stress disorder. In addition, the
cardiologist is to state whether the
service connected disorders aggravate any
coronary pathology present, and if so,
how much. The cardiologist should set
forth in detail the reasons and bases for
the opinions reached. If it is concluded
that additional examination is needed in
order to make this determination, such
examination should be scheduled.
Following completion of the requested development, the RO
should review the evidence and determine whether the
veteran's claim for service connection for a cardiovascular
disorder may be granted. If this claim is denied, the
veteran and his representative should be issued a
supplemental statement of the case, to include citations to
the relevant laws and regulations as needed, as well as
documentation of the consideration of Allen v. Brown, Id.
Upon completion of all the development requested above, the
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
review, if in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to assist
the veteran in the development of his appeal, and the Board
does not intimate an opinion, either legal or factual, as to
the ultimate disposition warranted in this case. No action
is required of the veteran until he is notified.
MICHAEL D. LYON
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -